Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla Corporation CEO

The US Supreme Court just ruled that political donations are free speech. No free speech for Eich.

Which government agency or official was involved in this situation?

Which agency of the government deployed their mind-control ray to compel him to resign from his position?

None of them. This was not a "free speech" issue.

Ever.

You trolls keep rolling out this ridiculous argument, over and over again, no matter how many times it's explained to you. So let's try it in a larger font. (with thanks to Garrett Morris)

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME: nobody, absolutely nobody, anywhere in this entire discussion, has tried to deny Eich's right to express himself. But taking part in public discourse means OTHER PEOPLE also have a right to express their opinions about you and what you do.

The only person in this equation who tried to take away anyone else's rights is Brendan Eich, and the people he attacked countered his action with some speech of their own.

Not only did Brendan Eich try to take away other American citizens rights and equal protection, he was successful.

Millions of gay and lesbian American citizens enjoyed the opportunity to become legally married before Prop 8, which he helped bankroll.

As for the people equating Freedom of Speech to protection from government oppression,I have news for you that will probably totally shake your world view:The USA is NOT the only country in the world! That also means that the first amendment of the US Constitution doesn't apply to the whole world.

This is an American company, with its offices in the US, governed by US laws. The person involved is American. The majority of the response has been from people living in the US under US laws. So why would we consider the EU definition of 'freedom of speech' in this event? If this all happened in the Netherlands, or the UK, or Germany, I would not be bringing up the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Quote:

And now my own opinion on (gay) marriage:I'm a big supporter of when 2 consenting adults want to publicly announce their love for one another and be allowed to legally represent one another. I don't want to call that marriage, since it has lots of religious connotations with it and/or 'historical meaning'. In Dutch we have a very good word for it: "samenlevings overeenkomst".I think it's ridiculous that marriage for some reason entitles you to more then a "samenlevings overeenkomst" (still!).And I'm ashamed that in The Netherlands a marriage officiant is allowed to NOT perform the marriage between gay people because it conflicts with their religious believes. (They are employed by the government but are allowed to refuse to do their job (and thereby execute the LAW), because of religion? WTF??)

So yes, I think Brendan Eich's personal opinion on gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that he is entitled to that opinion. And that he is also entitled to express that opinion, through voting/donating money/etc. You don't agree with his opinion? Argue with him through arguments, reasoning, etc. Educate him.

But a "name, shame and hate campaign" towards someone because you don't agree with someone's opinion (or a whole group of people because of prejudiced/brainwashed ideas towards them (think muslims))?

No, I don't want ANYTHING to do with that.

So, bye Ars. It has been interesting, insightful, educational and sometimes also fun. But apparently no more.

The Netherlands has a different take on couples and its laws allows for far more legal rights without "traditional marriage." As far as I know there are several legal arrangements adults can enter into. The US is not set up that way. Also in the US we have a history of "separate but equal" being deemed unconstitutional, so the idea of civil unions as a gay "separate but equal" arrangement did not sit well, for obvious reasons.

Some states, New York being the primary example in my mind because I lived there, addressed the "separate but equal" conundrum by introducing domestic partnership laws that applied equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples. I have a friend who's in a domestic partnership with her boyfriend. They have some rights (I'm not exactly clear on what they are tbh because I haven't looked into it) but not all the rights. But not all states have set up such laws.

My ideal is, as other people before me have posted, for the government to get out of marriage entirely. Civil unions for all! But this is very unlikely to happen at the federal level. So we're stuck with the term marriage, and so the term must evolve along with society, rather than society stagnating to maintain the same meaning of the term.

Strange, in the middle of typing this a counter-argument occurred to me: If I were the CEO of Generic Co. and I made a contribution to the KKK(or some equivalent that was in fact a legal political party), would that be illegal? Seriously, if that would be legal, then maybe I have the wrong end of this stick, because that sounds horrible to me.

After giving this more thought I came up with a response.

The legality of a hypothetical donation to the KKK aside, my analogy there is not quite on point.Race is a 'settled' issue in this country. Not solved, but the hearts of the country say that racism is wrong. So I think there would/should be an uproar if a CEO was voting with his $ to elect a candidate who advocated for racism.

How is this situation different? The issue of gay marriage is not settled yet. In fact, it is so not settled that there are ballot issues in many states about the topic. In this case, where the debate is the eye of the maelstrom, there will be deeply divided opinions on the issue.

Mr. Eich had an opinion about the issue. He expressed it by voting with his dollars, just as any of are free to do to the limits our finances allow. The issue is one that is most definitely 'in play'. I think it has to be OK for him to express his opinion in this case or where is political discourse? How can we decide as a society what is true and right if we muzzle people who disagree with us about relevant, current issues?

That being said I must admit to being deeply of two minds about this issue. I think in 10 years, or perhaps less, many people will look back and judge that gay marriage is simply socially just.

However, we live in the present and must make do as we can. For many the social changes surrounding sexuality seem to have come in the blink of an eye. For others the reverse is true and American society seems mired in entrenched attitudes that more properly belong at an school integration protest than in the 21st century.

In closing I pass on a lesson I think I learned from the civil rights movement:Laws can change overnight; hearts take longer. Patience will overcome.

wow, I didn't know he co-founded the company too. What's the world coming to if someone can't run their own company based on personal beliefs that do not even compromise his/her ability to do so? I actually kind of feel bad for the guy.

Nothing happened to the world. Anyone who founded a company before would tell you - even as a founder you have no inherit right to run the company forever once the board decides that any quality you possess is more damaging to the company than beneficial. That had always been the case and will forever be.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!

It's not his views that are hurting the business but the views of others about you keeping him employed. Again, he objectively makes the best pies. The fact that other people feel bad about him, bad enough to boycott your business doesn't make him a bad pie maker, just a bad person according to the current moral views of the society. Objectively he should stay employed, subjectively he should get fired. So in a country that isn't as subjective that guy will remain employed and will make better pies then the country that judges people on other things and not just on the ability to make pies. In the long run the country that fired him loses because we really care about pies and not how we feel about the guy making them.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

Umm... yeah? I'd rather have second rate pies than support a cause I abhor. How is this even a question? Your example implies that you'd rather have first rate pies and have your money go towards supporting an abhorrent cause, which frankly makes you repugnant as well as responsible for any future hate acts enabled by the people to whom you gave money to.

Quote:

Now let's extend that to whole industries. You don't let the best man for the job in that role because of his beliefs. What if there is another country that doesn't have these issues and lets people in the right role based on objectively measured skills.

While Eich may have been technically competent, there is a lot more to being a CEO than technical competence. The CEO is the face of your company both for your employees and for outsiders. Therefore the CEO has to be a person that the employees know they can trust. How can employees trust a leader who has supported taking away the already existing rights of a group? I personally would not trust such a CEO. If he's willing to fuck over one group, you'd better believe he'd have no qualms about fucking over another group. And once the employees don't trust the CEO, the company starts to lose good people and productivity.

Quote:

That country will be stronger even if it will not necessarily be more moral or correct in issues of equality and yada yada. And in the end it will have better guns and a better army. And it will fuck the politically correct country out of existence.

Now do you understand why I don't give a shit about political correctness? It makes you weak. And weak gets killed by strong.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!

It's not his views that are hurting the business but the views of others about you keeping him employed. Again, he objectively makes the best pies. The fact that other people feel bad about him, bad enough to boycott your business doesn't make him a bad pie maker, just a bad person according to the current moral views of the society. Objectively he should stay employed, subjectively he should get fired. So in a country that isn't as subjective that guy will remain employed and will make better pies then the country that judges people on other things and not just on the ability to make pies. In the long run the country that fired him loses because we really care about pies and not how we feel about the guy making them.

Since when is "best pies" an objective measurement while anti-sematics view a subjective one?

I don't happen to agree with his beliefs, but this kind of mob-rule Thought Police is the bane of our age. It's disgusting.

It's a fair and free exchange of ideas, free from government interference. Eich expressed his ideas (and acted upon them); his employers and the Board did the same. In the end it was a market-based decision.

I liked this site when there were lots of interesting and factually correct articles and where the members had intellectual conversations based on facts and arguments. And where it was ok when people had different views and when one person thought the other was wrong, (s)he would try to convince the other by educating the other with facts, in favor of their own stance and against the stance of the other person.

But now ... "let's name and shame them" seems to be the mantra. Not only by a LOT of commenters in this thread, but also by the hate campaign driven by this and no less then 6 other articles in a little over a week by the author Sam Machkovech. Apparently it doesn't matter that he reports FACTUALLY INCORRECT* things. But hey, everything is allowed in a hate campaign, especially if it generates lots of page views, right?

I will miss the articles by (especially) Lee Hutchinson and also Jon Brodkin. They wrote interesting, informative, factually correct articles and quite often followed with interesting and civilized discussions.To Sam Machkovech I only have this to say: Go back to playing and/or writing about video/board games, since real journalism is FAR out of your reach.

What exactly happened with the board? You had 60 percent of your board step down [three out of five]. You got one new board member, so you're back up to three. What was going on there? What were the issues that led so many people to step down all at once, right as you were taking over as CEO?Eich: It was two weeks ago, before the CEO appointment. Three board members ended their terms for a variety of reasons. Two were planning to leave for some time. Ellen Siminoff [CEO of online education company Schmoop] was planning to leave since late last year, another one was going to leave at the end of the CEO search. And John Lilly left for a variety of reasons. John was CEO and was busy with venture capital relationships Greylock [Partners]. John had done a ton of work for Mozilla at some cost to his partnership.

If you still think that I need to look up what Freedom of Speech is, please enlighten me.The best way to do that is rebut the points I've made through clear arguments supported by facts/links. Not your (emotional) opinion.

lots of downvotes but NO ONE has taken on my offer to enlighten me. Exactly as I thought would happen.

As for the people equating Freedom of Speech to protection from government oppression,I have news for you that will probably totally shake your world view:The USA is NOT the only country in the world! That also means that the first amendment of the US Constitution doesn't apply to the whole world.

Think about that for a moment before you accuse others of failed reading comprehension and/or ask them to go look up what Freedom of Speech is!

And now my own opinion on (gay) marriage:I'm a big supporter of when 2 consenting adults want to publicly announce their love for one another and be allowed to legally represent one another. I don't want to call that marriage, since it has lots of religious connotations with it and/or 'historical meaning'. In Dutch we have a very good word for it: "samenlevings overeenkomst".I think it's ridiculous that marriage for some reason entitles you to more then a "samenlevings overeenkomst" (still!).And I'm ashamed that in The Netherlands a marriage officiant is allowed to NOT perform the marriage between gay people because it conflicts with their religious believes. (They are employed by the government but are allowed to refuse to do their job (and thereby execute the LAW), because of religion? WTF??)

So yes, I think Brendan Eich's personal opinion on gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that he is entitled to that opinion. And that he is also entitled to express that opinion, through voting/donating money/etc. You don't agree with his opinion? Argue with him through arguments, reasoning, etc. Educate him.

But a "name, shame and hate campaign" towards someone because you don't agree with someone's opinion (or a whole group of people because of prejudiced/brainwashed ideas towards them (think muslims))?

No, I don't want ANYTHING to do with that.

So, bye Ars. It has been interesting, insightful, educational and sometimes also fun. But apparently no more.

You may not read this, as you "are done" with the site but here it goes:

1. Not everyone is in the USA. Correct. But this happened in the United States. Still I am confused as to what your point is with regards of this. Everyone is having an opinion and expressing it, even you, so who is getting suppressed by it?2. Indeed the first amendment doesn't apply everywhere. However Freedom of Expression is a human right if i'm not mistaken, which you know anyway since you seem to be complaining of this Ex-CEO's being oppressed because of it.3. What are you suggesting to be done? For people to ignore things they are not OK with them? Why don't you do that as well? Why is us complaining and avoiding the association with a person or corporation bad and you leaving this site because you strongly disagree with us OK?4. You have all the right in the world to not want gay marriage to happen and be called marriage. What you do not have is the right to vote in the rights of others; and if you are not an American should you get a say in this matter anyway?5. I am glad that you are for marriage equality, and thank you for that, even if you don't want to call it marriage.6. Everyone is entitled to their views, including the CEO, but the CEO's job is to represent the company and his personal actions definitely reflect on the company. Mozilla is pro equality, and Eich is not. He not only was against equality, he actively pursued to take away the rights of people in California. He acted against corporate values, so he can't represent them. He cannot honestly say "I'm going to respect equality" and actively act against it. He may not actively fire any LGBT people, but he damn sure was trying to make it impossible for them to have the same rights he enjoys.6.1 This is incredibly common as well, as any person will tell you, that if you are single ever make a sex tape and it gets out, you probably are not gonna run a company that promises to promote abstinence, nor you should.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!

It's not his views that are hurting the business but the views of others about you keeping him employed. Again, he objectively makes the best pies. The fact that other people feel bad about him, bad enough to boycott your business doesn't make him a bad pie maker, just a bad person according to the current moral views of the society. Objectively he should stay employed, subjectively he should get fired. So in a country that isn't as subjective that guy will remain employed and will make better pies then the country that judges people on other things and not just on the ability to make pies. In the long run the country that fired him loses because we really care about pies and not how we feel about the guy making them.

I KNOW you are trolling, but ley's say in your absurd hypothetical that he makes the best pies. Would you put him and his crazy views as a spokesperson of your bakery and in charge of hiring people and making company policy?

The US Supreme Court just ruled that political donations are free speech. No free speech for Eich.

He made a donation, he exercised his free speech rights, no one stopped him. Free speech does not mean being immune to the rejection of bigoted viewpoints.

Again, the failure of our education system is monumental

I tend think of the average Ars reader to be generally pretty intelligent, curious and perhaps with a college education and a degree.

However, the utter lack of logical reasoning and comprehension of the United States Constitution most sacred protection, equality, and complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment that has been put on display here the last week has been stunning.

When did the protection from the government to control speech become equated with never being judged by fellow citizens for the quality or intent of speech?

To be fair, these are the same civics class drop-outs who seem to think that "freedom of religion" means whenever someone wants to do something their religion disapproves of, their religion must be imposed on society. Some of them have some curious notions about the meaning of the second amendment as well.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!

It's not his views that are hurting the business but the views of others about you keeping him employed. Again, he objectively makes the best pies. The fact that other people feel bad about him, bad enough to boycott your business doesn't make him a bad pie maker, just a bad person according to the current moral views of the society. Objectively he should stay employed, subjectively he should get fired. So in a country that isn't as subjective that guy will remain employed and will make better pies then the country that judges people on other things and not just on the ability to make pies. In the long run the country that fired him loses because we really care about pies and not how we feel about the guy making them.

I KNOW you are trolling, but ley's say in your absurd hypothetical that he makes the best pies. Would you put him and his crazy views as a spokesperson of your bakery and in charge of hiring people and making company policy?

Straight pies. Straightest pies you'll ever see this side of California.

I'm betting that Brendan Eich was fired because he failed to disclose to the Mozilla Board that he had made over 2 dozen donations all of which were to political candidates that are either racists, homophobes or both, and NO donations to any other political candidates.

The board was likely willing to weather the storm over Prop 8, but when they were blindsided with these other donations, Eich's refusal to actually apologize for working to impose his religious views through force of law to deny some people equal rights came into focus and they realized they were dealing with a committed bigot who was also a master at lies of omission and obfuscation.

At that point, the Mozilla board realized that compromising their mission statement to make Eich CEO was a huge mistake. Mozilla was taking it in the neck from both employees and customers, neither of which they can afford to lose

I'm also betting that the board may have been surprised to learn that both Mozilla employees and customers actually take their mission statement seriously - to support openness, diversity, equality and to do good.

Essentially, the Mozilla board fell for Eich's glad-handing and didn't properly vet him because they trusted him.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!

It's not his views that are hurting the business but the views of others about you keeping him employed. Again, he objectively makes the best pies. The fact that other people feel bad about him, bad enough to boycott your business doesn't make him a bad pie maker, just a bad person according to the current moral views of the society. Objectively he should stay employed, subjectively he should get fired. So in a country that isn't as subjective that guy will remain employed and will make better pies then the country that judges people on other things and not just on the ability to make pies. In the long run the country that fired him loses because we really care about pies and not how we feel about the guy making them.

I KNOW you are trolling, but ley's say in your absurd hypothetical that he makes the best pies. Would you put him and his crazy views as a spokesperson of your bakery and in charge of hiring people and making company policy?

I wouldn't put him because it doesn't matter who puts him. He puts himself since it's his company. I am not talking about a specific example, just showing that if a society bases its decisions on political correctness it might not end up with the best man for the job on the job. In the long run this will hurt the economy. If the nazi can get over himself and employ people that he doesn't like, even Jews, then maybe we should get over the fact that he is a nazi. If he is objective then we should be too. Not because we like him but because if we fire him there is another company in another country that competes with this company but doesn't base its decisions on morality.

2. Indeed the first amendment doesn't apply everywhere. However Freedom of Expression is a human right if i'm not mistaken, which you know anyway since you seem to be complaining of this Ex-CEO's being oppressed because of it.

Not in the way it's understood in the US. There are lots of European countries where you can't say the Holocaust didn't happen, and that's clearly not a human rights violation.

Quoting avant's post:“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Well said. Well said, indeed.

Morality. Good. Proper.I have my compass, you have yours.

Majority opinion does not matter here. Have a read of Madison's federalist papers if you want a primer on the danger of majority rule.The minority opinion must be protected or else what have you got? Some possibilities:The chilling of 'free' speech.A social underclass.The thought police.

And before you dismiss this as the ranting of some conservative shill, consider this: 50-years-ago the majority said being gay was a mental illness and 'socially deviant'. I am certain many people lost their jobs over being cast as a 'deviant'. Was that right? Of course not!

Now the pendulum has swung and things are different. Hooray! But a man still lost his job over his 'deviant' viewpoint.

And the pendulum continues to move.

When will it be your turn to be the 'deviant'? Do you want to live in a society where 'deviants' cannot comfortably express dissent?

And if you offer up the old chestnut that 'he was in a position that demanded he be a figurehead', then all I can say is that crap rolls downhill. Why not the CFO, or the VP's, or the managers, or even the grunts? Where do we draw the line of who can have a personal opinion and who cannot?

Of course there's the false equivalence of deviant in your example. Saying being born a way (so you have no control over it) is not the same as choosing to oppress others (you have control of THAT choice).Understand?

Hmm... It seems our difference of opinion may be more basic. I agree that being born with a certain characteristic is not a choice. I agree that choosing to oppress others IS a choice. Where I disagree with is, to borrow an excellent phrase, the false equivalence between oppression and the legal exercise of a persons rights.

The oppression Eich engaged in was contributing to a campaign the goal of which was to take away rights from a minority group.

Quote:

You can consider his donation wrong, reprehensible, or whatever term you choose to apply. But what he did is not currently illegal, nor against the policies of many (most?) employers. Perhaps it will be some day.

Indeed, donating money to a social cause is not illegal. Which is why he's not facing, and will never face any sort of criminal charges over it.

Quote:

Strange, in the middle of typing this a counter-argument occurred to me: If I were the CEO of Generic Co. and I made a contribution to the KKK(or some equivalent that was in fact a legal political party), would that be illegal? Seriously, if that would be legal, then maybe I have the wrong end of this stick, because that sounds horrible to me. Anyone have an answer?

I guess it depends. I think if you're donating a significant amount of money to a known hate group that has has ties to violence/is considered a risk for domestic terrorism, you'd end up on some sort of FBI and DHS lists. But to take that factor of complexity out, let's instead say that you - the CEO of Generic Co which sells widgets in drug stores across the US and employs a thousand workers - didn't donate to the actual KKK, but a politician running to be governor of your state. This politician is sings the praises of segregation, literacy tests for minorities, talks about the genetic inferiority of minorities, and a return to same race marriages only in the state. You donate $50,000 to his campaign. It soon comes out that you donated that $50,000. Was it legal? Yes. (Ignoring political donation laws here ) Will people who pay attention and care deeply about equal rights for minorities organize movements to boycott your product when they find out? Yup they probably will, which is also legal. You're both acting legally.

Now if the boycott is powerful enough and Generic Co loses half its usual revenue and goes out of business, should the boycotters be figuratively pilloried for making a thousand people lose their jobs? Should you be figuratively pilloried for financially supporting what is now seen as an outdated and reprehensible point of view? Different people might answer those two rhetorical questions differently, based on personal experiences, personal biases, how they are affected by the event, etc.

Quote:

I may have to change my opinion. Do people do that anymore? ;-)Balancing free speech and public welfare is always a b!tch.

They do! I've certainly changed my opinions on some things in the past 10 years.

I don't happen to agree with his beliefs, but this kind of mob-rule Thought Police is the bane of our age. It's disgusting.

It's a fair and free exchange of ideas, free from government interference. Eich expressed his ideas (and acted upon them); his employers and the Board did the same. In the end it was a market-based decision.

Why do you support communism?

Communism? Really? Just because I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs outside of work, and that their jobs shouldn't hang on that?

I wonder if the crew defending him would still defend him if he'd donated to David Duke instead of Prop 8.

Look, I grew up around racists. Hell, I used to be one, until I got out of that environment. Where I come from (in the deep south), the word 'nigger' flowed like wine. Always has, probably always will. But never have I personally ever seen any discrimination (be it racist or otherwise) against black people at work. Why? Because most people who need to eat are smart enough to leave that shit at home. I never personally showed any disrespect to a black person at work. In fact, I never even thought about it, unless they somehow made it personal.

Most of these racists are actually decent people who would give you the shirt off their backs - they just don't like blacks, for whatever reason. But are willing to work with them and be civil towards them when necessary. It's like two cats living under the same roof who don't like each other, but learn to get along.

So no, I can't say this would matter to me PERSONALLY, unless he's burning crosses on the desks of black employees, or whatever. As far as I know, being a racist douchebag is not a crime.

As much as it pains me to continue to defend someone who I vehemently disagree with, I find it highly inappropriate and disappointing that the liberal internet lynch mob forced this guy out of his livelihood for holding an unpopular (in technology circles at least opinion). If he had been spouting off about "protecting traditional marriage" in the press or involved it in his career at Mozilla, I could understand the outrage.

But the fact that he made a personal donation to a cause (which, remember, is still very popular in the "heartland" of the county. Almost half of the country still opposes gay marriage) and lost his job because of it is outrageous...

I myself (and many of you) probably hold opinions which aren't popular with certain segments of the country. Should my family lose my income because of it?!

I liked this site when there were lots of interesting and factually correct articles and where the members had intellectual conversations based on facts and arguments. And where it was ok when people had different views and when one person thought the other was wrong, (s)he would try to convince the other by educating the other with facts, in favor of their own stance and against the stance of the other person.

But now ... "let's name and shame them" seems to be the mantra. Not only by a LOT of commenters in this thread, but also by the hate campaign driven by this and no less then 6 other articles in a little over a week by the author Sam Machkovech. Apparently it doesn't matter that he reports FACTUALLY INCORRECT* things. But hey, everything is allowed in a hate campaign, especially if it generates lots of page views, right?

I will miss the articles by (especially) Lee Hutchinson and also Jon Brodkin. They wrote interesting, informative, factually correct articles and quite often followed with interesting and civilized discussions.To Sam Machkovech I only have this to say: Go back to playing and/or writing about video/board games, since real journalism is FAR out of your reach.

What exactly happened with the board? You had 60 percent of your board step down [three out of five]. You got one new board member, so you're back up to three. What was going on there? What were the issues that led so many people to step down all at once, right as you were taking over as CEO?Eich: It was two weeks ago, before the CEO appointment. Three board members ended their terms for a variety of reasons. Two were planning to leave for some time. Ellen Siminoff [CEO of online education company Schmoop] was planning to leave since late last year, another one was going to leave at the end of the CEO search. And John Lilly left for a variety of reasons. John was CEO and was busy with venture capital relationships Greylock [Partners]. John had done a ton of work for Mozilla at some cost to his partnership.

If you still think that I need to look up what Freedom of Speech is, please enlighten me.The best way to do that is rebut the points I've made through clear arguments supported by facts/links. Not your (emotional) opinion.

lots of downvotes but NO ONE has taken on my offer to enlighten me. Exactly as I thought would happen.

As for the people equating Freedom of Speech to protection from government oppression,I have news for you that will probably totally shake your world view:The USA is NOT the only country in the world! That also means that the first amendment of the US Constitution doesn't apply to the whole world.

Think about that for a moment before you accuse others of failed reading comprehension and/or ask them to go look up what Freedom of Speech is!

And now my own opinion on (gay) marriage:I'm a big supporter of when 2 consenting adults want to publicly announce their love for one another and be allowed to legally represent one another. I don't want to call that marriage, since it has lots of religious connotations with it and/or 'historical meaning'. In Dutch we have a very good word for it: "samenlevings overeenkomst".I think it's ridiculous that marriage for some reason entitles you to more then a "samenlevings overeenkomst" (still!).And I'm ashamed that in The Netherlands a marriage officiant is allowed to NOT perform the marriage between gay people because it conflicts with their religious believes. (They are employed by the government but are allowed to refuse to do their job (and thereby execute the LAW), because of religion? WTF??)

So yes, I think Brendan Eich's personal opinion on gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that he is entitled to that opinion. And that he is also entitled to express that opinion, through voting/donating money/etc. You don't agree with his opinion? Argue with him through arguments, reasoning, etc. Educate him.

But a "name, shame and hate campaign" towards someone because you don't agree with someone's opinion (or a whole group of people because of prejudiced/brainwashed ideas towards them (think muslims))?

No, I don't want ANYTHING to do with that.

So, bye Ars. It has been interesting, insightful, educational and sometimes also fun. But apparently no more.

2. Indeed the first amendment doesn't apply everywhere. However Freedom of Expression is a human right if i'm not mistaken, which you know anyway since you seem to be complaining of this Ex-CEO's being oppressed because of it.

Not in the way it's understood in the US. There are lots of European countries where you can't say the Holocaust didn't happen, and that's clearly not a human rights violation.

Yes, every country imposes some limits to freedom of expression. This is nothing new, and it's a very interesting subject for discussion, for example: It is legally penalized in my state to make homophobic remarks. I am against this law, even though I'm gay, because that is the government prohibiting words, which I think it's wrong. I will not discuss it further because it's incredibly tangential to what we are actually discussing: Eich's rights VS people's rights in this very case.

Now in the context of what I was actually responding to, could you tell me where the freedom of expression for Eich was violated?

I don't happen to agree with his beliefs, but this kind of mob-rule Thought Police is the bane of our age. It's disgusting.

It's a fair and free exchange of ideas, free from government interference. Eich expressed his ideas (and acted upon them); his employers and the Board did the same. In the end it was a market-based decision.

Why do you support communism?

Communism? Really? Just because I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs outside of work, and that their jobs shouldn't hang on that?

Fuck you, asshole.

You seem to be very confused. Let me help:

- He wasn't fired.- The Board accepted his resignation.- The uproar wasn't about his beliefs, but his actions.- These actions contributed to the stripping of rights from other individuals in California.- The CEO of a company is more than a technocrat - he is supposed to fulfill the broader ethos and charter of an organisation.- Eich didn't do this.- It's not a free speech issue.

As much as it pains me to continue to defend someone who I vehemently disagree with, I find it highly inappropriate and disappointing that the liberal internet lynch mob forced this guy out of his livelihood for holding an unpopular (in technology circles at least opinion). If he had been spouting off about "protecting traditional marriage" in the press or involved it in his career at Mozilla, I could understand the outrage.

But the fact that he made a personal donation to a cause (which, remember, is still very popular in the "heartland" of the county. Almost half of the country still opposes gay marriage) and lost his job because of it is outrageous...

I myself (and many of you) probably hold opinions which aren't popular with certain segments of the country. Should my family lose my income because of it?!

I don't care about your opinions. No one does.

Actions with the sole intent of denying or removing the rights of others, on the other hand...

I don't think there is a good ending to this, firefox's market share has been declining for a while, it isn't really relevant in mobile platforms and IMO isn't even keeping up that well on the desktop side.

Mozilla needed and now needs strong technical leadership more than a figurehead or getting bogged down in politics. This controversy hasn't really brought out the worst of everyone involved and I doesn't make Mozilla look very good as an organization, it looks like a company in disarray.

It will be interesting to see how the CEO search goes for Mozilla this time.

The worst part of all of this is certainly going to be his new-found martyr status in some circles. To everyone against this decision, please keep in mind that Eich was fully entitled to his own personal beliefs on marriage. But when he chose to donate money and vote to take away other peoples' rights to their own beliefs and equality, he crossed the line from speech to oppression. Just as he had the freedom to do that, so too did we have the freedom to object to his appointment as CEO.

Right, so if you make a donation to PETA, aren't you trying to force your beliefs on others, and oppressing meat eaters? Maybe we should go on a witch hunt ....

As much as it pains me to continue to defend someone who I vehemently disagree with, I find it highly inappropriate and disappointing that the liberal internet lynch mob forced this guy out of his livelihood for holding an unpopular (in technology circles at least opinion). If he had been spouting off about "protecting traditional marriage" in the press or involved it in his career at Mozilla, I could understand the outrage.

But the fact that he made a personal donation to a cause (which, remember, is still very popular in the "heartland" of the county. Almost half of the country still opposes gay marriage) and lost his job because of it is outrageous...

I myself (and many of you) probably hold opinions which aren't popular with certain segments of the country. Should my family lose my income because of it?!

Thank you. They destroyed this guy's career because he didn't agree with them, when all of his "dissenting" activity was completely outside his working life. That's not activism, that's retribution. It says that if you don't conform to the most vocal societal segment's views, you can't hold a prominent position in any company.

And who, exactly, is being oppressed here?

I actively support gay-rights issues. But this entire episode is disgusting.

I wonder, if a CEO of a major company in America was a vocal neo-nazi and contributed to causes to re-introduce segregation, ban minorities from getting married, having kids, etc. How many people would be defending his or her job then?

Well, first this guy wasn't VOCAL about anything. But to your point, yes I would still be defending his job if he were all that, assuming he left it out of the workplace. Why? Because I don't want my own political/religious beliefs to be on trial the next time I apply for a job, whether I'm the CEO or janitor. There's a reason why people got pissed when prospective employers started asking them for their Facebook username/password. What I do on my own time is none of their fucking business.

I don't happen to agree with his beliefs, but this kind of mob-rule Thought Police is the bane of our age. It's disgusting.

It's a fair and free exchange of ideas, free from government interference. Eich expressed his ideas (and acted upon them); his employers and the Board did the same. In the end it was a market-based decision.

Why do you support communism?

Communism? Really? Just because I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs outside of work, and that their jobs shouldn't hang on that?

Fuck you, asshole.

You seem to be very confused. Let me help:

- He wasn't fired.- The Board accepted his resignation.- The uproar wasn't about his beliefs, but his actions.- These actions contributed to the stripping of rights from other individuals in California.- The CEO of a company is more than a technocrat - he is supposed to fulfill the broader ethos and charter of an organisation.- Eich didn't do this.- It's not a free speech issue.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

Sure. Help me to a truly free society where, if I want to earn a living, I don't have to conform to your particular point of view, you sanctimonious jerk.

I simply see it as a beautiful example of exercising freedom of speech by all parties. Mr. Eich exercised his by supporting a cause he believes in and a large number of people exercised their freedom by expressing why that particular set of beliefs is not appropriate for the good of the society. Mozilla as a company then made a business decision seeing the loss of revenue.

Much better than suppressing one view vs another.

The problem being, from one perspective, that it is the people who advocate tolerance that are being intolerant. I think the voting reflects the general indecision about this more than on any other article I've seen on here.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard.

Hypocrites.

Mozilla is not working to enact any laws that deprive Eich of any of his rights. Your accusation of hypocrisy is rooted in an apparent inability to see logic and nuance.